6 ms·

This originally aired on the PBS series Frontline in March. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plasti

by Todd 6y ago

This originally aired on the PBS series Frontline in March. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/ Watching this made me very sad. I feel like I've been lied to my entire life. Of course, I'm also to blame for not spending more time seeking out the truth. Marketing is indeed very effective. This show changed my perspective and has made me want to redouble my efforts with regard to my impact on the environment.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> This show changed my perspective and has made me want to redouble my efforts with regard to my impact on the environment. At this point, the only effort worth making is reducing consumption. Reducing travel, reducing use of everything across the board. Of course, our whole society is setup so people need others to consume more and more so they can feed their family, because all the debt has that growth baked in in order to break even.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  No. Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. Be more full proof and apply the same rules to import/export. This is how oil, fast food, meat, luxury, etc industries want you to behave. Recycle, reuse and reduce was a failure which was proposed the same way you did. Consumer responsibility could be an additional measure but not the main focus. It's their fault first and foremost.
  - Sabinus 6y ago
    The problem is, conservatives and others worldwide oppose this because it imposes costs on business in just one country, leaving businesses there with a disadvantage in world markets. Policies like these need to be coupled with import tariffs to countries with dirty industries, else we just end up legislating all our industry away and instead buy from countries who have no problem with polluting the environment.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. In my opinion, there is no environmentally friendly practice that allows the world to consume at the pace it wants to. You can’t have multiple annual flights to vacation destinations, large vehicles, and quarter acre lots per family. Not only can the tiny proportion of the world enjoying the above not have it anymore, but to mitigate the damage already done, we probably need to come to a near stop rather than just slow down from 80mph to 40mph. All while a few billion people in the developing world are looking forward to their children being able to fly to destinations for vacations and enjoy a backyard and nice car.
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      A high carbon emission tax can force people to reduce their useless flights. Aviation industry's global emission is at 2 percent and only tiny percentage (3-5%?) of world population travel by air. A lot of problems is also due to inefficient traffic control and laws. Plus, that include air cargo. I can't find anything that accounts only for consumer flights.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        We’re in agreement that the way to solve the problem of overconsumption is to raise the cost of consuming by increasing taxes on fossil fuels. Problem is any politician that proposes it will get voted out because people want to consume. So until a a large majority of people are willing to forgo the type of life desired based on what people are used to and currently enjoying, it seems impossible to impose the requisite level of taxation.
        searchableguy 6y ago
        As I already pointed out, only a small amount of people travel by air regularly. So I really doubt that would be a problem for election. For other industries, it's a mixed bag. Some will be welcomed such as reduction in planned obsolescence, better public transportation, more greenery, less trash on roads, breathable air, etc. Most people won't notice inefficient coal power plants getting replaced by other better options. They want electricity at cheap and they will get it.
Consultant32452 6y ago
Graciously stolen from Michael Malice. The major red pills in approximate order are 1) I'm being misled systematically 2) I've been misled since school 3) They are fully aware of what they are doing 4) Given the choice, they would prefer me dead over defiant I welcome you to red pill #3. The next trick is overcoming the Gell-Mann amnesia effect for all the future stuff they tell you.
medium_burrito 6y ago
Don't feel sad. Seek out the truth. As I posted in an earlier comment, I went a to a recycling plant over a decade ago, and the truth found me. The triad of reduce reuse recycle is true, inasmuch as two parts of it should be emphasized. But consumerism a cruel mistress.
- jrib 6y ago
  I've heard it stated as: 1. Reduce 2. Reuse 3. Recycle In that order!
eik3_de 6y ago
I found it on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzee3tIZco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzee3tIZco

by Todd 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> This show changed my perspective and has made me want to redouble my efforts with regard to my impact on the environment. At this point, the only effort worth making is reducing consumption. Reducing travel, reducing use of everything across the board. Of course, our whole society is setup so people need others to consume more and more so they can feed their family, because all the debt has that growth baked in in order to break even.

searchableguy 6y ago
No. Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. Be more full proof and apply the same rules to import/export. This is how oil, fast food, meat, luxury, etc industries want you to behave. Recycle, reuse and reduce was a failure which was proposed the same way you did. Consumer responsibility could be an additional measure but not the main focus. It's their fault first and foremost.
- Sabinus 6y ago
  The problem is, conservatives and others worldwide oppose this because it imposes costs on business in just one country, leaving businesses there with a disadvantage in world markets. Policies like these need to be coupled with import tariffs to countries with dirty industries, else we just end up legislating all our industry away and instead buy from countries who have no problem with polluting the environment.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > Participate in politics to force industries to adopt environment friendly practices and production. In my opinion, there is no environmentally friendly practice that allows the world to consume at the pace it wants to. You can’t have multiple annual flights to vacation destinations, large vehicles, and quarter acre lots per family. Not only can the tiny proportion of the world enjoying the above not have it anymore, but to mitigate the damage already done, we probably need to come to a near stop rather than just slow down from 80mph to 40mph. All while a few billion people in the developing world are looking forward to their children being able to fly to destinations for vacations and enjoy a backyard and nice car.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    A high carbon emission tax can force people to reduce their useless flights. Aviation industry's global emission is at 2 percent and only tiny percentage (3-5%?) of world population travel by air. A lot of problems is also due to inefficient traffic control and laws. Plus, that include air cargo. I can't find anything that accounts only for consumer flights.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      We’re in agreement that the way to solve the problem of overconsumption is to raise the cost of consuming by increasing taxes on fossil fuels. Problem is any politician that proposes it will get voted out because people want to consume. So until a a large majority of people are willing to forgo the type of life desired based on what people are used to and currently enjoying, it seems impossible to impose the requisite level of taxation.
      - searchableguy 6y ago
        As I already pointed out, only a small amount of people travel by air regularly. So I really doubt that would be a problem for election. For other industries, it's a mixed bag. Some will be welcomed such as reduction in planned obsolescence, better public transportation, more greenery, less trash on roads, breathable air, etc. Most people won't notice inefficient coal power plants getting replaced by other better options. They want electricity at cheap and they will get it.

Consultant32452 6y ago

Graciously stolen from Michael Malice. The major red pills in approximate order are 1) I'm being misled systematically 2) I've been misled since school 3) They are fully aware of what they are doing 4) Given the choice, they would prefer me dead over defiant I welcome you to red pill #3. The next trick is overcoming the Gell-Mann amnesia effect for all the future stuff they tell you.

medium_burrito 6y ago

Don't feel sad. Seek out the truth. As I posted in an earlier comment, I went a to a recycling plant over a decade ago, and the truth found me. The triad of reduce reuse recycle is true, inasmuch as two parts of it should be emphasized. But consumerism a cruel mistress.

jrib 6y ago
I've heard it stated as: 1. Reduce 2. Reuse 3. Recycle In that order!

eik3_de 6y ago

I found it on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzee3tIZco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzee3tIZco